- 6,708
- 1,194
Just in case Continued from here https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/3711936?useskin=oasis#501
I never would even DREAM that this would take so long.
I never would even DREAM that this would take so long.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
contributive and constructive along with the lines you gave is subjective. he could push for it if the links and stuff are reasonable and critical, whether it goes anywhere would do with time, it's harmful if it breaks the rules. anyway let's get back to the subject.DarkDragonMedeus said:As long as they're more so contributive or constructive; I'd very strongly advise against making posts that are more that are dozens of paragraphs long and make sure links are properly organized. I already explained in detail that pushing for Tier 1 stuff and all that is not going anywhere. But sharing simply stuff is pretty harmless.
Yeah I Know, I'm playing the cards right though, I even said such a subject is derailing the thread, it was a yes or no answer. I never even mentioned tier 1, don't put that on me. The point is if ZaStando wanted a message put through and through as long as it's reasonable it's all fine, no matter the stats there's no official rule stopping it, let's just move on from this it's getting more deeper than it needs to and it's derailing the thread.ShakeResounding said:I agree with DDM that this Tier 1 talk should be saved for later. 2-B is what this is about, and to derail with that at this point is just prolinging this.
To summarize, "At least Low 2-C, possibly 2-B" was proposed and accepted by Sera and hesitantly accepted by AKM that it was fine (even if he personally might still disagree). I believe there's little to no reason to not have this go through, as the opposition has A) Fallen out of touch with the thread (Like Pritti), B) Has ignored several arguments for it being 2-B, and C) Has repeated arguments over and over that have been dismissed and ultimately lead nowhere with the result of the thread.
So to get straight to the point, unless somebody is going to either debunk Mephistus' points or give new arguments, there's no reason for this to be more than 50 points long. There is next to nothing left to discuss here, and feels as if this is getting dragged out for the slim chance that 2-B won't happen despite the previously mentioned solution being completely acceptable.
But Antvasima wanted the ignored Pro 2-B arguments brought up to the table once more before the previous thread ended, so I guess that's happening.
I am quoting Medeus' post from the last thread to state that I agree about that he is just trying to maintain proper standards for the wiki, and shouldn't be lambasted for that. If the dream worlds have not been explicitly stated to be of universal size, we probably shouldn't count them as such. Also, as I mentioned earlier, please stop seeing this as a competition, and rather switch to trying to peacefully collaborate to find the most reliable statistics instead.DarkDragonMedeus said:Someone messaged me on community central to also give his side, and I also think he's being reasonable here. Also, Sera has basically admitted she hasn't really read the interview in depth and was just rolling by what people were saying and doesn't fully understand the details. Not that it's her fault, but still.
It's already mentioned in the sca and the interview that it's describing the "World of Dreams" to be a mirror to the Waking World. Which only the Waking World, and the entirety of the World of Dreams have enough statements to be entire universes. None of the individual Dream Worlds are stated to be universes. Owl says things like "Your Dream World" and uses "World to describe the Waking World, which also could refer to Earth as they humans are obviously from Earth. But he never said their Dream Worlds were the same size or shape as the Waking World. Only the entirety of Dream Worlds has that statement about being the same size as the Real World.
I've been reading every world you guys have been typing for a while now, and I honestly feel like I'm one of the few people who are actually reading the full details. We aren't "Angry Boomers", we're just doing our jobs to see if they meet the guidelines. And the circular arguments, bold accusations, and many other things aren't helping the cause. Also, if you're going to use "Angry Boomer" as an argument. I could turn this around and say you guys are acting like a bunch of aggressive stoners throwing rocks at public speakers just for trying to manage things peacefully; albeit saying things that are unpopular. "Killing the messenger" is never a plausible tactic.
uh-huh, it's more than disagreement chief but he clearly has a bias against anything sega related I can name like 16 unrelated threads where medeus blatantly accepted it despite having the same qualifying factors as this hence being dishonest, if not a hate boner, it's a bias. let's ask the real questions, why is medeus the only active opposer? he's the 1% keeping us from achieving a very simple goal. it's dishonesty and bias.Antvasima said:Medeus doesn't hate Sega. He just disagrees with you, since this goes against our usual standards for this sort of thing.
Reposting this, Medeus is repeating yourself, Mephisto only does that because you keep using the same arguments thus he literaly has to repeat himself to counter them, people in the last thread literaly had to quote the previous arguments to refute youShakeResounding said:I agree with DDM that this Tier 1 talk should be saved for later. 2-B is what this is about, and to derail with that at this point is just prolinging this.
To summarize, "At least Low 2-C, possibly 2-B" was proposed and accepted by Sera and hesitantly accepted by AKM that it was fine (even if he personally might still disagree). I believe there's little to no reason to not have this go through, as the opposition has A) Fallen out of touch with the thread (Like Pritti), B) Has ignored several arguments for it being 2-B, and C) Has repeated arguments over and over that have been dismissed and ultimately lead nowhere with the result of the thread.
So to get straight to the point, unless somebody is going to either debunk Mephistus' points or give new arguments, there's no reason for this to be more than 50 points long. There is next to nothing left to discuss here, and feels as if this is getting dragged out for the slim chance that 2-B won't happen despite the previously mentioned solution being completely acceptable.
But Antvasima wanted the ignored Pro 2-B arguments brought up to the table once more before the previous thread ended, so I guess that's happening.
Explictly needing to call something a universe gets thrown to the wind if its just called a world if the world term has sufficient evidence and interchangebility with when its referring to sets of multiple dimensions with worlds and one world/dimension is a known universe.ElixirBlue said:> Being "Parallel Worlds" or "Parallel Dimensions" isn't quite enough for them to be universes even if they're larger than planet sized without more elaborate context. The Light World and Dark World from Zelda aren't considered Universes despite using such context; same with the Wind Fish's Dream World.Then how does Majora's Mask Link have 3-A key despite coming from a "Parallel world", Termina?
You missed the part where Mephistus gave literal evidencenas to why the term "world" stills means universe, and I feel like you weren't paying close enough attention to the entire previous thread at that rate. Even Sera agrees with universal-sized dreams based on the evidence goven, so I don't understand what your problem is with what's been given.Antvasima said:I just read Mephistus' explanation, but do not understand where the concrete evidence for that all dreams are universe-sized is. It seems like speculation, and against our usual standards, if only the term "world" was used. In addition, the size of the environment in real world dreams is usually quite limited compared to yourself.